Wong Kan Seng
Singapore
“We all want a better future for our children and the future generations. Amid the debates, let us not lose sight of what we are working for – we are working for the benefit and future of Singaporeans. Not for growth targets, not for foreigners, but for Singaporeans.”
“Mrs Mildred Tan also suggested doing a longitudinal study on the impact of new citizens on Singapore. I am told that there is a periodic study on the perception of integration and rootedness of Singaporeans and PRs. A study is now ongoing too.”
“All they need to do is simply declare that they meet the residential criteria. EASING IN US ECONOMY (Impact on Singapore) 9. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister what will be the expected impact on the Singapore economy arising from the US Federal Reserve's announcement on 3rd November 2010 of a "quantitative easing" of the US economy…”
“Well, from the data I have here, 553 registered to vote before the 2006 GE and this is the data I have but Ms Lim may be right. There may be 1,000-odd that Ms Lim had mentioned. From what I am told now, we have 1,325 Singaporean overseas who are eligible to register to vote have registered.”
“But, as I said, there are so many other possibilities that they could come in and there could also be many possibilities that we could have missed and they have entered or left Singapore. LAND SWAP AGREEMENT FOR KTM STATION AND RAILWAY LANDS 2.”
“They are also recruiting people by offering them scholarships. So, we hope more of our companies can do that. Hopefully they come here to work for a while and, if they like our place, they may want to settle down. This is a place which they can think about. POPULATION AND TALENT DIVISION 5. Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,192 lines we hold for Wong Kan Seng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 51 of 64.
“I do not know how many years' notice does Mr Chiam want. If five years is not enough, how many years does he want? What date does he want to have?”
“Whether it is on the 28th December 1996 or the 25th December 1995, it is irrelevant. Mr Chiam has four or five years to get 81 candidates to contest the next elections. That is what is relevant. Mr Chiam See Tong: You have put up a challenge. We have rebutted it. You tell us exactly what date it is and we will take up the challenge.”
“First of all, Mr Ling should listen very carefully to what I say. I did not say that we need the NMPs here to point out your mistakes. I just said that it shows your inadequacies. Inadequacies are not mistakes. And for the PAP, we have no fear about it. As for Mr Chiam's point about contesting in 81 seats, indeed, if he were to say for the record that he will contest 81 seats at the next elections, we shall wait for him. But at the last elections in 1991, he said that he would let the PAP form the Government. Now, will he tell us that in the next elections, he shall contest all the 81 seats?”
“Commit, not try. Not just trying it, commit yourself that you will field 81 candidates and we shall let the people decide who they want to be the government. I think that is fair.”
“They are not people's delegates who have to go back to the people every time there is a question. In that case, we do not have to have a government. We just have a referendum whenever an issue is to be debated and we just seek a public opinion poll and decide on the issue. But that is not the system that we have. We have a system that is based on representative government and therefore we should keep it. Some say there are enough channels of feedback, communication, views are given and so on. Yes, we have. We have Opposition Members, we have PAP Members, we have Feedback Unit and a whole host of other organisations. But what is there to be lost by having NMPs in this House to give viewpoints and opinions that are not necessarily widely canvassed? What do we have to lose? I think for the PAP, there is nothing to lose. For the Opposition, it may show up the inadequacies of their performance and therefore there is a concern that NMPs may undermine their position. Looking at the debate at the last Parliament as well as during the Committee of Supply and Budget debates, we have heard noth-ing very much from the Opposition. And all the more, even though we have only four Opposition Members, we should continue to have NMPs in this House.”
“Some of our MPs here also say that if we really want to have NMPs and if they become Ministers, then how can we have Ministers who are not accountable to the electorate? Again, all we need to do is to look at other countries. There are countries bigger than ours, there are countries wealthier than ours, there are countries with more talent than ours, and these are the countries which are also democracies. The United States, 220-230 million people, the whole of the Bush Cabinet is unelected. In Britain, 50 million people, the whole of the House of Lords is unelected. Maybe Members may not have heard, in Germany, 70-80 million people and yet they have unelected Ministers. You might have heard of Mr Kinkel, the Foreign Minister of Germany, who was sworn in a couple of weeks ago. Up to today, he is still an unelected MP. In fact, when Mr Kinkel became the Justice Minister just about a year and a half ago, he was not even a member of the Free Democrats Party which nominated him as the Justice Minister. Here we have a country, richer, wealthier, stronger, having more talented people and yet they see it fit to have unelected people to take office if the need arises. What more of Singapore? For three million people, we assume that we will be able to find all the talent that we need to form the Cabinet. Today, yes, in future, who knows? Can we predict what may happen in the future? I think it would be foolish of us to throw away that possibility and not to have NMPs become Ministers. For those who say that we must have a mandate, well, MPs are elected as representatives of the people. They are not delegates of the people. They have the responsibility to decide what is best for the nation.”
“That question can quite simply be answered by looking at the records of the Opposition's speeches during the elections. Did they campaign against the NMP scheme? If they were so against the issue, did they say, "No, let us turn this around and have more Opposition in Parliament," and overturn this system and not to have NMPs? That is the key question. In fact, Mr Chiam should examine his records. As I said, we have to evolve our own system. We had a system in the past where MPs could change parties and cause instability in the Government, and we amended the law to make sure that if you change your party after you were elected, you have to go back to the people for another mandate, and that stopped the change. When we had all PAP Members in this Chamber and we wanted to accommodate an alternative view, the Opposition view, we again changed to allow for NCMPs. And that again we learned from experience. And knowing that we may sometimes face difficulties in electing minority candidates, we changed the system to allow for GRCs to ensure that minority candidates are elected. Having two parties in the Chamber necessarily will entail adversarial politics. I think we cannot run away from it. We can see examples of this during debates in this Chamber. The PAP Members and the Government always state one point of view, the Government's point of view, the Opposition another. Having NMPs will provide us with an alternative point of view, which can be unbiased, which can be independent and which just concentrates on the substance of the debate and on the issue without getting emotional about it, without having to go and campaign for votes and speak to the gallery. I think that is the most important point.”
“In fact, what I am leading to is there is not just one model of democracy. There are different kinds of democracy. We have inherited the Westminster type of democracy. And over the years, from experience, from what we have learnt from other people, from the implementation of our own system, we have evolved a system that is most suitable to our own needs. I think that is a factor which we must all remember. No two countries are the same. We must be able to learn from others, adapt the good experiences and apply to our own circumstances, so that we can do better ourselves. And that is how Singapore stays ahead. We cannot blindly copy other people, and I can quote you examples of countries which have just borrowed wholesale the American system, and they have done quite miserably. So we have to be very careful about this. When we inherited the system in 1962 --- Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I clarify?”
“I think Mr Chiam jumps to the conclusion too soon.”
“Maybe if you look at the father of all Parliaments, there is another one. Let us take the example of the United States. The United States has a Congress, comprising a House of Representatives and the Senate, the Elected President, and yet the whole Cabinet of the President of the United States is unelected. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---”
“That is a different matter which we are not discussing today. What I am trying to explain to you is that in the mother of all Parliaments, they have unelected Members. An hon. Member: Where is the father?”
“Not at all. Therefore, if you are not against the idea of an unelected Chamber, why are you against the idea of having unelected Members in this one Chamber?”
“Which means you are not against the idea of an unelected Chamber.”
“That is also not quite a true representation of what had taken place. Of the 22 sittings that we had between 20th December 1990 and 29th July 1991, Parliament sat for 22 days. But if Dr Tan were to take the number of times that Parliament was convened, Parliament actually was convened only seven times. So in a situation like, say, the debate on the President's Address, no Member can speak more than once, yet we have five days of debate on the President's Address. And if he says, therefore, the NMP only spoke once out of the five days and he had not done enough work, this is not correct. This point ought to be clarified, otherwise people may have the wrong impression that NMPs have not contributed much. I have looked at their records in Hansard also. They had spoken on a wide variety of issues, not just in their area of specialisation, like medicine, or business, but many of the issues that they brought up were quite outside their area of specialisation. That is a fair comment if you were to examine the Hansard very carefully. Whether they are inferior or third-class MPs, all of us have seen them and I do not think the NMPs themselves feel inferior to any of us here. I think they have acquitted themselves well. I would even venture to guess that they did much better than the Opposition. On the question of whether this is against Parliamentary democracy or not, I recall the Prime Minister quoting extensively from a book on the Constitution of Britain. He did go through examples of what a Parliament actually consists of. And in the mother of all Parliaments - Great Britain - their Parliament consists of the Queen, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. In the House of Lords, there are 1,192 Members. Do we say that is undemocratic?”
“First of all, I would like to thank all those Members who have spoken in support of this motion. For those who have spoken against the motion, I have heard nothing new. There is more heat than light. They have gone through some old grounds. Some, in fact, probably did not even look at what was debated in the past and repeated the same old points. I will just take one example, not specifically trying to single out Mr Ling. All the points that he has brought up have been answered in the Prime Minister's speech in 1989. If he had bothered to read the speech, then he would probably have raised a different question and not rehash the same position, same problem and the same questions that were raised previously. The questions raised by MPs actually arise from two aspects. Firstly, that the two NMPs have not been contributing to our satisfaction and, therefore, we have not been able to see the merits of having NMPs in this Parliament. Secondly, Members question whether this is against parliamentary democracy or not, and why do we need unelected Members in this Chamber when we already have enough views been canvassed from the PAP as well as from the Opposition. Let me take the first point on the two NMPs. To be fair to them, they have done a good job. I have looked through the records and I do not agree with Dr Tan Cheng Bock when he said that there were 22 sittings in that Parliament and Prof. Choo spoke seven times and Mr Leong Chee Whye, four times. If he were to interpret ---”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know how long this debate will take. Just in case we need more time, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. NOMINATED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT Debate resumed.”
“I know there are PAP MPs here who are also employers and there are Opposition MPs who are employers, but they will necessarily, eventually have to reflect the party line. So there is room for those who are not partisan to play a role in this House and NMPs should therefore be part of our system. NMPs do not need to worry about elections or the votes. They can freely speak their mind giving objective inputs and concentrating on the substance of the issues. We have seen the two NMPs in this last Parliament. I believe they have been fairly active despite the fact that they were in Parliament for less than nine months. I therefore commend all Members here to support this motion. Question proposed.”
“We have seen how inadequately they have performed during the last Budget and Committee of Supply debates. In any case, Opposition Members will always oppose whatever the Government does. Their job is not to help the Government improve but to embarrass it. Whatever they say, therefore, represent a narrow sectional interest, the interest of the Opposition. No doubt people will want to hear the Opposition's views and hear them expressing them in Parliament. But being in the Opposition, they cannot resist the temptation of playing to the gallery and hence not dwelling on the substance of an issue. I do not blame them as this is to be expected of the Opposition. The PAP already has 77 Members in this 81-Member Chamber. It does not need more voices to support Government policies. So NMPs are not here to speak up for the PAP. In the past, PAP MPs also played the role of the Opposition. People therefore were able to see a wide variety of views expressed by the PAP MPs. Now that there are four Opposition Members in this Chamber, the PAP MPs will not play the role of the Opposition but they will close ranks instead. On this issue, however, we will make the exception of lifting the Whip because the Prime Minister in his speech in 1989 had agreed to lift the Whip. But let me say that the public and the Members here should not expect this to happen again because the PAP MPs will close ranks. NMPs, on the other hand, reflect an independent, unbiased view as they are non-partisan. They can concentrate on the substance of the debate since they do not have to play to the gallery. There are groups outside whose views may not be adequately aired in this Chamber, for example, those of the employers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, resolves that there shall be nominated Members during the term of this Parliament. Sir, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore provides for the appointment of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs). Two NMPs, Prof. Maurice Choo and Mr Leong Chee Whye, were appointed in the last session of Parliament. Parliament has to resolve to have NMPs within six months of the opening of Parliament if we are to have them in this session of Parliament. Once Parliament so resolves, the public will then be invited to submit nominations for consideration by a Special Select Committee of Parliament. The Special Select Committee will then recommend the nominees for the President's approval. The principles underlying the need for having NMPs had been elaborated by the Prime Minister who was then the First Deputy Prime Minister when he moved the Second Reading and reiterated in the Third Reading of the Bill amending the Constitution. Some suggestions and improvements had also been incorporated by the Select Committee on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill after the public had made representations. So I am not going to go into great detail the principles or merits of having NMPs as these had been clearly stated and thoroughly debated in 1989, and NMPs are now provided for in our Constitution. I therefore do not expect Members to re-debate the principles all over again. What is before the Members today is only a motion asking them to decide whether or not we should have NMPs in this session of Parliament. Sir, in spite of the fact that there are now four Opposition MPs in this Chamber, we should still have NMPs.”
“Thank you very much for your patience, Mr Speaker. In the last two weeks or so, you have sat through 10 days of sittings of Parliament - first, the debates on the Budget Statement, next, in the Committee of Supply, and then two days of sittings to consider the Bills. Many Members have spoken, some very eloquently and well prepared. And, of course, you, Mr Speaker, have been most patient and indulgent in listening to some of the speeches which were probably a bit too long. Sir, I now beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have finished all the Bills and the Motion in today's Order Paper. Tomorrow, we will meet again to consider the remaining Bills. Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. -- [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes past Three o'clock pm.”
“You are not a Minister. How can you reply? Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -- [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. CUSTOMS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.00 pm.”
“So by 1997 or so, we would have restored the present complex. The present Parliament Complex is about 0.9 hectares and the new complex will be about 3 hectares, which means three times the size of the present complex. The gross and net floor areas presently are about 4,574 sq metres and 2,147 sq metres respectively. But the new complex will add additional facilities with additional gross floor area of about four times the present size which is 17,170 sq metres and a net floor area of 8,401 sq metres. This excludes two basement car parks which we are also planning and the MPs will be able to park their cars in the basement. Besides the new Parliament Chamber and the related rooms such as Galleries, Interpreters' rooms, officials' rooms, TV camera rooms and so on, there will be a large public hearing room as well as three meeting rooms, a Library and Members' rooms and so on. There should be enough rooms to meet the needs or the uses of Members. But there would be no luxury of allocating one room per Member. The new complex will be of excellent design and high quality. It will be elegant. It will be beautiful and functional, but it will not be a grandiloquent statement.”
“Since Mr Speaker cannot speak, I shall speak on his behalf. I am pleased to inform Members that the planning for an extension of the existing Parliament Complex started in 1989. In 1990, Mr Speaker led a study mission, together with the design and project teams, to Europe and Australia to look at the Parliament Houses of these countries, so that the teams can familiarise themselves with Parliament complexes. Since then, we -- Mr Speaker, myself and a few others -- have had several briefings with the teams and now plans are afoot to restore the existing buildings and facilities and to build a new Chamber. There will be different kinds of facilities. Firstly, there will be a new building housing a new Chamber and this new Chamber will be on the southern end of the old Attorney-General's Chambers. With this new Chamber, we will then be able to meet long-term needs of Parliament. We will restore the old AG's Chambers and renovate it to provide for a new and larger Library and there will be rooms for the staff as well as for the Archives. The present Parliament House as well as the Annexe will also be renovated and restored to provide for a reception hall, meeting rooms, committee rooms and so on. The construction and restoration programme will be in two phases. Phase 1 will be the building of the new Parliament Chamber and the restoration of the old AG's Chambers. This will start sometime around the middle of next year, but the piling work will begin early next year. It will take about two years to finish. So by the middle of 1995, I think we will have a new Chamber. Phase 2 will be the restoration of this present building as well as the Annexe. This will begin when we finish the first phase, ie, towards the middle or end of 1995 and will take about 20 months.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this question should rightly be answered by you.”
“Dr Ho Tat Kin: Sir, I thank the Minister for his detailed reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $97,043,800 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $65,817,400 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head J -”
“This year, these provisions are centralised under MFA's budget, so that the funds can be more effectively managed to meet our foreign policy objectives. Part of the increases is also for the buying and developing of properties, chanceries and residences for our overseas missions. Over the long term, it is definitely more cost-effective to own, rather than to rent properties abroad. It therefore makes good sense for us to use the strong Singapore dollar to buy during a period of economic downturn when property prices are low. Sir, in summary, 1991 was a historic year. The formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States on 21st December last year marked not only the collapse of the Soviet Union but also the end of the Cold War. In July 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected the renewal of the US-Philippines Base Treaty, hastening the US military downsizing which may already be underway in the Asia-Pacific. If anything at all, last year was a clear indication that we are in a period of great change and uncertainty, not a period of peace and calm, as Mr Chiam said last week. Only time will tell whether the changes are for the better or for the worse. But whatever it will be, the events of last year only reaffirm the need for a robust, flexible and proactive foreign policy. In an increasingly interdependent world, a country like Singapore depends on its international links and access - political and economic - for its survival. It is the job of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to build these links and to promote access in support of our strategy in the Next Lap for internationalisation. MFA's budget is a reflection of the important role that it plays in the internationalisation of Singapore. It is a small investment in the long-term future of Singapore.”
“I would also like to say that foreign policy is not just for the short-term and for the good times only, as Dr Ho implies. It is also for the long-term and "not-so-good" times. The work of the Foreign Ministry does not end or stop, neither does it slow down with the slowing down of the economy. 1.45 pm I have explained last year that the Ministry would have to be significantly strengthened to cope with the needs of a newly industrialised economy faced with larger and international responsibilities in a more fluid, global environment. This requirement remains unchanged. Indeed, the rapidly changing international landscape is placing further demands on the Ministry. While the Ministry remains acutely conscious of the need for budgetary prudence, our foreign policy must be guided by a pragmatic reading of the situation, and by the opportunities and the dangers it presents. And we must act on all these assessments, because opportunities are fleeting, and if we are not to be engulfed by the dangers. Last year, the Ministry's share of the budget was increased to 0.16% of the GDP. This year, the Ministry's budget is 0.22% of GDP. Dr Ho says that this is a hefty increase. The main increases are going to provisions for peacekeeping operations, for humanitarian assistance and the Singapore Cooperation Programme. These are all expensive items. But we operate on the principle that unless we are prepared to do our bit, we cannot expect others to help us when we need help. I should also point out that in previous years, provisions for peacekeeping operations and technical assistance were divided under the budgets of a number of Ministries.”
“Economic relations are likely to be further facilitated now that air links between Vietnam and Singapore have been established. Agreements on shipping and investments are also being discussed. The Trade Development Board has sent trade missions to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. EDB will bring other top Singapore entrepreneurs to Vietnam later this month. TDB is planning to set up an office in Ho Chi Minh City. We want to see a prosperous Indochina, peacefully integrated into the region and sharing in its prosperity. We will help in ways that are within our means. But ultimately Vietnam and the other Indochinese countries must adopt the correct policies that will make them attractive partners for trade and investments. This will draw in the private sector and create more compatibility and links with the rest of the region. On the UN Transitional Authority on Cambodia, Singapore has been invited to take part in UNTAC. We will be contributing 75 police officers, and 15 of them will leave by the end of this month. This large deployment is therefore a concrete demonstration of our continuing support for the UN system of international law and order. On the Ministry's spending, Dr Ho is sceptical that our Ministry will be able to help in Singapore's economy. He also asked why we are spending so much more on foreign affairs this year despite anticipated slower growth. Let me make clear that foreign policy alone will not lead to economic recovery. But it can, and it does, make a vital contribution towards creating the conditions necessary for growth, because a stable regional environment and access to markets around the world will help our trade and our economy.”
“Sir, Dr Ho asks why we are spending so much money when others are spending less during a period of slow economic growth. I will deal with that afterwards. He also asks about our relations with Vietnam and what we are doing about UNTAC (UN Transitional Authority on Cambodia). First, on Vietnam. Dr Ho said that Singapore's relations with Vietnam can hardly be described as cordial. I would say that this was true up to last year. The Cambodian issue was indeed the sole obstacle to better relations. In fact, Singapore was about to set up a trade office in Hanoi when Vietnam invaded and occupied Cambodia. Singapore's strong position on the Cambodian issue was one of fundamental principle and did not stem from any inherent antagonism against Vietnam. Indeed, a stable and prosperous Vietnam is in Singapore's interest and also in the interest of the whole region. But with the signing of the Paris Agreement on Cambodia last year, a new phase in our relations has begun. In November last year, for example, the Vietnamese Prime Minister, Mr Vo Van Kiet, visited Singapore. This signalled a new beginning. We agreed to expand economic relations and to establish diplomatic missions in each other's countries. We have set in motion the administrative work to establish an embassy in Hanoi. Although we have not fixed a date yet, we will set up the embassy as soon as all the necessary arrangements have been made. In November last year, the investment ban on Vietnam and Cambodia was also lifted. There is good potential for expanding bilateral and mutually beneficial economic ties. We are now Vietnam's largest trading partner with trade reaching more than S$1 billion last year.”
“On 17th February, our Attorney-General gave the Malaysian Attorney-General a memorandum setting out all the legal arguments and the documentary proof to show Singapore's ownership of the island. Our Attorney-General also proposed that the two Attorneys-General should meet in two weeks' time, ie, two weeks from 17th February, to settle the issue of ownership of Pedra Branca. We are awaiting Malaysia's response to our memorandum, setting a date for the two Attorneys-General to meet and give us their documents. But so far we have had no indication when this would take place. We have just at the end of last week sent another TPN to Malaysia asking them to set an early date for the exchange of documents, and we hope to receive a reply soon. Sir, the sooner Pedra Branca is settled the better, because it is an unnecessary irritant in our bilateral relations. Dr Mahathir's statement that the issue should be resolved by legal means was indeed a positive statement.”
“On the question of Pedra Branca, Mr Chen asked what step Singapore has taken to resolve this issue. I should go into a bit of background so that Members know what has taken place. This issue has been outstanding for almost 12 years. In May 1980, our then Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, discussed the ownership of Pedra Branca with the then Prime Minister of Malaysia, the late Tun Hussein Onn during Tun Hussein Onn's visit to Singapore. They agreed to resolve the ownership of Pedra Branca by going back to whatever documents there were to prove ownership of the island. Subsequently, when Dr Mahathir became the Prime Minister, Mr Lee and Dr Mahathir also agreed in December 1981 to resolve the matter through a formal exchange of documents to prove ownership of Pedra Branca. On 6th July 1982, we told the Malaysians that we were ready to exchange documents. Since then we have reminded the Malaysians, both at Ministerial and at official level contacts, and through, what we call in diplomatic jargon, Third Person Notes (TPNs), that Singapore was ready to exchange documents and we asked them to set a date to do so. But there was no response, even though in October last year our Prime Minister and Dr Mahathir reaffirmed the 1981 agreement to resolve the matter through a formal exchange of documents as soon as possible. The subject of Pedra Branca was again discussed by Prime Minister Goh and Dr Mahathir during the Summit on 25th Jaunary when they met each other in Singapore. They agreed that the Attorneys-General of Malaysia and Singapore should effect the formal exchange of documents and determine the ownership of Pedra Branca on a legal basis.”
“We have already worked with Japan on TCTPs for 17 countries and we are now considering Mongolia and in time to come we will also consider Indochina. Such developments will reflect the evolution of both our countries. Singapore is becoming more developed, and Japan is trying to define a new political role for itself. We think we have enough in common for us to work together in a mature relationship, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. We must look forward to the future in our relations with Japan. But good relations do not mean that we should not or cannot speak frankly to each other, if need be. It is precisely because we are friends that we should speak to each other. We cannot forget our experience in the Second World War or pretend that it did not happen. This is not the way to forge a mature relationship. Nor will other countries in the region forget. If Japan were to play a successful political role, it therefore must be more open about its past and win the trust of all its neighbours, in particular China and Korea. Equally important are internal obstacles. There does not yet seem to be any domestic political consensus on what political role Japan should play. There are internal political problems that complicate the domestic debate on Japan's political and security roles. The issues are profound, long term and complex. The most pressing and specific ones, like peace-keeping activities, are being tackled first. It would also be more reassuring for Japan's neighbours if it takes a step-by-step approach. This would include making broader use of non-controversial instruments, such as the Overseas Development Assistance Programme or by taking part in logistics elements of the UN peace-keeping operations.”
“The state of US-Japan relations is the single most important factor affecting developments in this region. But Japan-US relations are likely to be troubled for some time to come. I think the leaders in both Washington and Tokyo fully understand the broader interests at stake and will try to preserve their relationship. But both countries must also deal with domestic interest groups that may not be as far-sighted. If US-Japan relations are ruptured or if Japan decides that the Americans can no longer protect its strategic interests, then Japan will rearm and seek to project its power to protect its interests. Then this will alarm the Koreans and the Chinese and they will also react. The consequence will be an arms race which will cause instability in this region. At least for the next 10 years, the presence of the United States in the region will be vital. New regional powers will emerge to fill the vacuum if the United States is not present. Today, the US needs help to remain engaged in this region. We should therefore chip in to do whatever we can. But as the most developed and economically most powerful or strong country in the region, Japan has a special role to play. We all need the stability of a balance of major powers to continue to enjoy optimal conditions for economic growth and prosperity. 1.30 pm Mr Chen reminds us of Japan's occupation 50 years ago. I do not think we can ever forget this dark period. But today we have very good relations with Japan. It is and will remain an important economic partner with Singapore. We are beginning to move beyond a single focus on economics to also work together in other areas where we have common interests, for example, through what we call Third Country Training Programmes (TCTPs).”
“Sir, Mr Chen asked about three things. He asked me to comment on Japan and how Japan is expected to play a role in the Asia Pacific, about the ASEAN Summit and about the ownership of Pedra Branca. Mr Chen is right in saying that the ASEAN Summit was a success. The Summit went beyond rhetoric and found the political will to make pragmatic responses to the changing world situation. The Summit identified the emerging trend of economic regionalism as a major challenge confronting ASEAN. The Single European Market and the North American Free Trade Area will have a significant impact on the region. They may even have a negative impact unless ASEAN can make itself more competitive. So the ASEAN Heads of Governments decided to establish an ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) within 15 years. AFTA is an effective way to stimulate intra-ASEAN economic cooperation. It will increase ASEAN's competitiveness. AFTA will also help to prevent the diversion of trade and investments away from the region. It is therefore in our interest to see that AFTA succeeds. The challenge now is for ASEAN to sustain the political will to implement the decisions of the Fourth ASEAN Summit and, if possible, to implement AFTA within a shorter period than 15 years. There is no inherent contradiction between APEC and AFTA or with the other regional groupings. As a country that does business with the rest of the world, Singapore must be connected, through various linkages, to all major economic groups and with all our business partners. ASEAN already has the ASEAN-US initiative and we are also working towards a "third generation" cooperative agreement with the European Community. Mr Chen asked about Japan's role in the Asia Pacific.”
“May I raise another point, Mr Speaker. Mr Chiam requests that his two other colleagues be also allowed to speak. I am not sure whether you should consider this because Mr Chiam sent in some cuts on Friday, which is a day late, whereas the other two Members did not send in anything at all.”
“A small envelope. I think what was delivered to him was even bigger than what he had expected -- a big white book. In the big white book, all the papers were there with the letter, the forms and the guide-book. For the first time, I think Parliament has done its work by giving new MPs guidelines on how to fill up the forms. He is not new and he does not need all that. To expect Parliament to remind him, just like we had to keep reminding him about putting in a note to change his seat, I think we have been doing too much. Again, I will leave it to Members to decide.”
“Sir, we now hear that Mr Chiam was waiting for the big envelope to come.”
“It is completely in order for the House to reject Mr Chiam's request, because it is entirely his fault. He has himself to blame. But here perhaps I would ask my colleagues to consider giving Mr Chiam a second chance and let him have his way again, otherwise we would be deprived of his great contribution. Of course, we do not know what he will say. So I will leave it to the MPs here to decide. In this instance, they have a free vote in deciding whether he should be allowed to speak or not. If they say yes, well and good. Mr Chiam should not forget the next time. But if they disagree, then I would perhaps ask Mr Speaker to consider and find ways of letting Mr Chiam to speak.”
“Sir, I do not know the reason for the lapse on Mr Chiam's part not to have submitted his amendments. He is not a rookie MP, like Mr Ling How Doong or Mr Cheo Chai Chen or Mr Low Thia Khiang. This is his eighth Committee of Supply, his eighth year in Parliament. All of us received a copy of the Budget book from Parliament on 28th February when we had the Budget Statement. Together with the Budget book, as Mr Speaker has said, the notes on how to submit forms and move cuts were given, and the forms were also enclosed with the Budget book. It was clearly stated in the letter as well as in the forms that the closing date shall be the 5th of March, but Mr Chiam has forgotten to submit the amendments. Mr Chiam is supposed to be the unofficial Leader of the Opposition. I also notice that the other two SDP Members did not submit any cuts. I do not know whether they were also led up the same garden path by his lackadaisical attitude and therefore they did not submit any cuts.”
“When the matter is re-considered, I shall let him know. BILLS INTRODUCED SUPPLY BILL "to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund and the Development Fund of the sums necessary to meet the estimated expenditure for the financial year 1st April 1992 to 31st March 1993", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY BILL "to provide for making supplementary provision to meet additional expenditure for the financial year 1st April 1991 to 31st March 1992", recommendation of President signified; presented by Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1991 TO 31ST MARCH, 1992 (Paper Cmd. 8 of 1992) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are no plans at present to build a void deck community centre in Hong Kah GRC west ward.”
“2 of 1992 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to tomorrow at 3.00 o'clock pm." - [Mr Wong Kang Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes past Four o'clock pm.”
“In the case of America, Members of the House of Representatives take their oath en masse, that means, all together at the same time. For example, the Speaker of the House of Representatives would administer the Oath in the form of a question as follows, and I quote: 'Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter. So help you God?' Then the members would just respond en masse, in the first person, singular, by saying, "I do", without even stating their names. In the Senate, the Senators are also sworn-in in groups of 3 to 6 each time. We should therefore improve on our present method of taking our Oath of Allegiance, hence the proposed amendment. I believe Mr Speaker would work out something for our next Parliament's swearing-in ceremony. As regards the procedure on divisions, the present procedure is to call out individually the names of Members in alphabetical order. Again, this takes up some time of the House whenever a division is necessary. Amendment 19 therefore enables us to take the votes upon a division in a more efficient manner, either by voting slips or other means, or by electronic voting when we build our new Parliament chamber. I therefore commend Members here to adopt the Report of the Standing Orders Committee. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee contained in Paper Parl.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee contained in Paper Parl. 2 of 1992 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament." Sir, under your Chairmanship, the Standing Orders Committee has proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. These amendments can roughly be divided into three categories. One, amendments consequent upon the changes to the Constitution which provided for an Elected President. Amendments 1 to 8 of the Report refer to these. There is no need for me to go into the details as the "Remarks" paragraphs in each of the amendments gave the reasons for the amendments. The second set of amendments (9 to 14) relates to the times stated in the Standing Orders. The amendments are to regularise the present situation. Again, there is no need for me to elaborate on them. The third category of amendments (15 to 25) are to streamline certain Standing Orders and facilitate the conduct of business. Again, explanations are given for each of the proposed amendments and there is no need for me to explain further except for two of them, namely, Amendment No. 17 (Oath of Allegiance) and Amendment No. 19 (Procedure on Divisions). Both these amendments are to facilitate the conduct of business and improve the efficiency of the House. As Members know, at the beginning of every Parliament, each of us has to take the Oath of Allegiance individually. The whole process took up some time. We therefore made a study of how other Members of Parliament and American Congressional Members are sworn-in. We found that in the case of Australia, the MPs are sworn-in in groups of 10 to 12 while in New Zealand the MPs take their oaths in groups of up to four each time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering this question as Deputy Chairman of the People's Association. There are no plans at present to build a void deck community centre at Simei New Town. BRANCH LIBRARY AT YISHUN 11. Mr Ho Peng Kee asked the Minister for Information and the Arts what is the status of the project to build a branch Library at Yishun.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is also normal practice for the House to review and amend Standing Orders from time to time to make sure that the business of the House can be transacted as efficiently as possible. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Standing Orders Committee to be appointed under paragraph (4)(a) of Standing Order 95 do consider and report on such amendments to the Standing Orders of Parliament which the Committee may deem necessary." Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Standing Orders Committee to be appointed under paragraph (4)(a) of Standing Order 95 do consider and report on such amendments to the Standing Orders of Parliament which the Committee may deem necessary. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes to Five o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. Table 1 - PER CAPITA GNP RANKING OF NEW NEWLAND AND SINGAPORE (Cols. 379 - 380) Table 2 - EDUCATION PARTICIPATION RATES - % OF AGE GROUP (Cols. 381 - 382) Table 3 - RESIDENT NON-STUDENTS AGED 15 YEARS & OVER BY HIGHEST QUALIFICATION ATTAINED (Cols. 383 - 384) Table 4 - BREAKDOWN OF 1992 SECONDARY ONE STUDENTS BY SCHOOLS POSTED AND TYPE OF RESIDENCE (SINGAPORE CITIZENS ONLY) (Cols. 385 - 386)”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is normal practice for the House to appoint a Committee of Selection at the beginning of every session, so that the Committee can appoint other Sessional Committees of the House. Sir, I beg to move, "That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 95, appoints the following as Members of the Committee of Selection:- Mr S. Dhanabalan Dr Lee Boon Yang Mr Mah Bow Tan Encik Sidek Bin Saniff Mr Peter Sung Mr Wong Kan Seng Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon." Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 95, appoints the following as Members of the Committee of Selection:- Mr S. Dhanabalan Dr Lee Boon Yang Mr Mah Bow Tan Encik Sidek Bin Saniff Mr Peter Sung Mr Wong Kan Seng Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon. STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE (Motion)”
“That is not a point of order, Mr Speaker.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose that Mr Abdullah Tarmugi be elected as Deputy Speaker of this Parliament.”